|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Brexit - Should they stay or should they go? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
It's a Mexican stand off which I'm hoping will result in a referendum simply because they can't decide. Preferably with an option of 'ah, stuff it, might as well carry on with what we've got'. The only way I see that happening is if Labour gets back into power. A possible scenario would go something like this:- May comes back with an updated deal. They vote on it and it fails. - Labour triggers a vote of no confidence in the government. - The DUP breaks ranks and side with Labour (as do some other MPs) giving them a majority - As a result, a general election is called and Labour gains seats and is able to form a coalition with others to get a majority - Labour calls for a second referendum re-asking the Brexit question In all honesty, I see the above as a remote possibility. Now it is possible that if May's deal fails, she will finally recant and say the vote should go to the people. But then, what would that second referendum look like? Would it just re-hash the same question? Would it be a referendum on May's deal or no deal? Would it include a provision for cancelling Brexit? Becomes really complex at that stage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
There are only 96 days and 5 hours till the UK leaves the EU. That's not a lot of time for your scenario to take place. Agreed. In fact, I think it is a Hail Mary at best. What I think is most plausible is that the deal either passes with a slim majority with some amendment to the Irish backstop. Or it fails and then the EU may be forced to take a softer approach to the whole situation to avoid a hard Brexit. I understand their desire to play hardball. But at some point, they must realize that having the second biggest economy in Europe get snafued is going to harm them as well. The analogy I would use is California or Texas in the USA. Those are the two biggest economies by GDP and if something dire was affecting either of them, it would likely cascade everywhere. No state would be insulated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
I've decided that we'll have another referendum because that's what I want. I'm putting my fingers in my ears when anybody says anything else. It's a trick I've learned from Faith. You might want to invest in one of these:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
May has now stated that the vote for her deal will occur in January. And now, Jeremy Corbyn has tabled a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister.
UK's Labour calls May no confidence vote over Brexit vote timing | Reuters
quote: I don't really understand this from a political perspective, but I am not that familiar with British politics. I thought May already dealt with a no confidence vote from her own party. And she survived that and cannot be challenged again for a year. Is it different because now the motion comes from the opposition? I thought they might be able to call a vote of no confidence in the government, but not the PM directly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
Appears the government is now taking precautionary measures in lieu of a potential No Deal Brexit:
quote: Brexit: Cabinet 'ramps up' no-deal planning - BBC News Definitely no boding well at this stage. I guess the rubber will really hit the road after the vote on May's deal. If it fails, which is likely, the only real options left are No Deal, an extension of the Article 50 deadline, or another referendum. And there is massive divisiveness for all those options.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
That's about it. It would be a waste of time even if it resulted in a no cofidence outcome, but it won't, it's defeated before it starts. The conservatives aren't going to vote against their party. Corbyn is a disingenous twat - he's refusing to tell the electorate where he stands. That's very damaging for him but he's buggered either way because everyone knows he wants out. Seems like a lot of the politicians are being disingenuous. I remember watching a few videos of Jacob Rees-Mogg (sounds like a Harry Potter character btw) and in the one video, during the time of the no confidence vote enacted by the Conservatives, he was adamant that May needs to resign. The moment the Labour party tried the same thing, he said he would vote against it because his party comes first. Seems a little bipolar to me. But part in parcel with how politicians operate on both sides of the aisle. Here is a link to an article talking about his about-face: indy100 - 404 Not Found
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
quote: Brexit: Jeremy Corbyn demands election to 'break deadlock' - BBC News I am guessing this is mostly just grandstanding since the minority party can't call for a general election. So far as I know. But we are getting down the homestretch now with the vote for May's deal being next week on Tuesday. It still looks like she doesn't have the votes for it to pass, so I wonder what will happen if/when it fails in Parliament. I guess its anyone's game at that point. I was watching a pundit discuss this and he suspected that the first vote for May's deal would fail. But then there would be a subsequent vote and that it would likely pass. Largely due to the backlash MPs would face from constituents who would likely start seeing a lot of volatility in the currency and stock markets that will affect them directly. Hard to say if that is right. But being that there is so little time left, it does appear as though May's Deal or No Deal are the only options left. There isn't enough time to call for a second referendum or a general election. Unless they get an extension of Article 50. And from what I heard, the EU is unlikely to do that unless there is assurances that 'Remain' will somehow be back on the ballot. Edited by Diomedes, : Fixed typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
A general election won't solve the problem. It might just postpone the implimentation of Article 50 for a few months. That's about it. I would agree. Not to mention, there is insufficient time to call an election prior to the Article 50 deadline. The remaining options at this time that I see are: - May's Deal- No Deal - Second Referendum The last one is a long shot in my mind and comes with copious risks. The only way a second referendum would even be viable at this stage is if the EU ratified an extension for the Article 50 deadline. And I think the only way they would agree to that would be if 'Remain' was somehow on the ballot. Perhaps they can orchestrate some version of a referendum that has a weighted system (ranking). But the danger is if the referendum still leans towards leave. There is no guarantee that people will now vote to remain. So if a referendum gets called and the answer still ends up being leave, it will be a disaster and will likely result in a hard Brexit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
I think we have now officially transitioned from quagmire to clusterf&*k. Next in line is shitstorm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
I'm pretty sure buggers muddle came before cluster fuck. But maybe that's needlessly pedantic. Fair point. I am still coming up to speed on my UK lingo. So the sequence might look like: Quagmire -> Buggers Muddle -> Clusterfuck -> Shitstorm Not sure about Omni-shambles. That could be a synonym of Buggers Muddle. But willing to include that as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
quote: May's government survives no-confidence vote - BBC News So that at least reduces the options on the table since a general election is now not possible or likely. So remaining scenarios are: 1. May's current deal passes with some amendments or provisions2. A No Deal Brexit occurs 3. A second referendum I guess a lot of that will be predicated on what May can salvage in the next few days, since she is under time crunch for a Monday deadline for Plan B. She has been adamant that a second referendum won't occur. But she has flip flopped on other things. So I wouldn't take it off the table. I am still of the opinion that eventually, Parliament will vote for some variation of May's deal since it is far superior to a No Deal Brexit. It is likely that MP's constituents will start to become more annoyed with this whole mess and may start putting pressure on them to just get on with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
That's the real danger with another referendum. Despite the chaos, there is no guarantee that the vote would switch in a meaningful way. And even if it did tend towards Remain, if the margin is slim, that opens up the possibility of continued pressure and calls for additional referendums.
I don't have a dog in this fight and despite some my own concerns with the EU, I was still in favor of Britain staying. My main rational is that Britain was the foil for Germany, which is essentially the defacto 'leader' of the EU. Without them, Germany would have even more clout over the smaller, weaker countries. And Brussels is essentially just their puppet. With that being said, calling another referendum or calling off Brexit entirely would cause serious damage to the credibility of the government as an institution. Or maybe that is shot already. Hard to say. Well, as we said, clusterfuck. No better term at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
It is this blind adherence to the 2016 referendum, including some dunderheaded idea that an issue can only be voted on once, that is a big part of the problem. The members of Parliament know a Brexit vote today would be far more informed than the one in 2016, and they should make sure it happens. In all representative governments it is reasonable to ask, "If the electorate voted for the country to jump off a bridge, should the government do it?" In my opinion we elect our public officials not to blindly do our bidding but to represent our best interests, even when we have a misguided understanding of what those best interests are. What is interesting however is that the ultimate culprit of this debacle is the Conservative party itself. And to some degree, Labour as well. For many years now, the Tories have had to deal with a case of schizophrenia within their own party between individuals who supported the Eurozone versus those that were Euro-skeptics. David Cameron decided to try to settle the matter (along with Scottish independence) by having a set of referendums and he assured the public that those referendums would be delivered and the results honored. I believe his assertion was that if he provided the people a voice, he could finally quell the issues once and for all. Now the Scottish independence referendum went his way. And I think that may have led to a certain sense of complacency on his part. As a result, when the referendum for Brexit materialized, Remainers simply did not do an adequate job of selling their story and also being more vocal about the outright fabrications that the Leave side were performing as part of their tactics. Although to be fair, both sides lied. The end result is he boxed himself into a corner and ended up causing him to lose his PM status when things went to pot as they like to say. Now does that mean that there is no provision for another referendum? Not at all. And I certainly don't think it is undemocratic to ask for one. The issue is one of perception and politics. Leave advocates have been consistently pushing the narrative that PM May and members of Labour and the Conservative Party have had no interest in delivering Brexit and are deliberately screwing things up in an effort to undermine everything. Perhaps that is true. Although my knowledge of how government functions is that they don't deliberately fuck things up; they are just too preoccupied with their own egos and their donors that fuck ups are a natural consequence of that mindset. Ultimately at this stage, I think it is just a matter of timing more than anything. The Article 50 deadline is March 29th. The only way another referendum can be accommodated is if that deadline is extended. And the only way that can happen is if the majority party asks the EU for an extension and the EU grants it. Neither of those options is in any way certain. A general election is also off the table in lieu of the recent no confidence vote and also because there simply isn't enough time. So what we are left with is either a variation of May's deal or no deal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
Taq writes: There is certainly the danger of looking like you are having endless referendums until the vote goes the way they want. However, I don't think that is the case here. Rather, people can now see what leaving really means and what impact it will have so this justifies a new referendum, at least in this Yanks eyes. It's a tricky issue no matter how you slice it. There is already rumblings from Leave advocates of what they are calling the 'Brexit Betrayal'. i.e. an assertion that the government is ignoring the will of the people or are purposely screwing things up just to get the outcome they originally wanted. I personally don't think that is the case. As mentioned, when Governments screw up, it is usually due to outright incompetence and political shenanigans as opposed to some Illuminati conspiracy. And considering the circumstances, if parliament is deadlocked, isn't placing the vote back to the people the democratic thing to do? I think the bigger issue is even if another referendum is considered, what the question would be would also be endlessly debated to the point that it might make the referendum non-viable.
caffeine writes: This is kind of what I have been thinking (especially since I will still be living in the EU after Brexit); though not quite as you put it. The idea that Brussels is a puppet of Germany is absurd; and Germany by itself cannot bully smaller countries effectively. The way the qualified majority voting system works, it takes an alliance of two of the big three member states to be an effective bully - and even then the third big state only needs the support of a few smaller countries to block them. Perhaps I was being melodramatic. But the better way to phrase things is that the perception of many EU nations is that Germany is calling the shots. This is a common discussion point in my original home country of Greece. Many basically say that after two world wars, Germany has found a way to control Europe without firing a shot.But as you stated, if one looks at perceptions, Great Britain was essentially the nation that stood against tyranny on behalf of Europe. Now I don't think by any means Germany is tyrannical anymore. Quite the opposite. But the perception remains. And having Britain within the block at least acted as somewhat of a foil for actions taken by the other larger countries. France of course is still there. But they are having their own problems of late and may not be in the best position to function well against any perceived 'bullying' by other larger member states. AZPaul3 writes: Are you sure that Her Majesty can't just behead her? I know Queenie Baby can't make the leave/remain decision herself (a stiff political thing that seems quite archaic) but she should be able to help things along for the good of the nation as all good monarchs should You know its funny you mention that: I was literally thinking about this the other day. I don't know the legality of the Monarch's power, but does she have any clout to step in when Parliament is at a standstill? I kind of think along the lines of the Vice President in the USA being able to break a tie in the Senate. Are there any powers the Head of State can utilize in the British system? My guess would be no. But she has been silent on this matter the whole time and maybe even voicing an opinion or stating that Parliament should work more collaboratively might help. Or maybe not. Seems Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn hate each other so the gridlock will likely persist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
Not sure how many are aware, but HBO is putting out a film on Brexit staring Benedict Cumberbatch which is premiering this Saturday here in the USA. You can view the trailer on Youtube:
I think I'll try to catch it on the weekend.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024